Thursday, November 19, 2009

Ah. The topic that pits freedom against ethics. To say the least, this is a subject of much controversy and for the most part there is no middle ground. However in true Wahbastic fashion I shall strip the emotions that have defined this debate for so long and attempt to convince you that it is wrong in principle.

While I am not a person to criticize freedom of self destruction, I subscribe to the fact that an abortion is legally considered the killing of a human. I know, controversial, but here me out here.

The law has almost always considered fetuses to be alive. This can easily be shown in the Scott Peterson case. While this case doesn't have anything to do with abortion, the case shows that the law acknowledges the life of a fetus. Peterson killed his wife who was 8 months pregnant. If the law considered the fetus not to be alive, then Peterson would have been charged with one count of homicide, no problem. However, the court went a step further and added a second count of homicide for the unborn child. This shows beyond any doubt that fetuses are alive, and as such have a right to life, liberty and property. Mind you homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. There is no ownership of an unborn fetus. It is not private property. It is legally a human life. Remember that.

Some will say " Abortions in the third trimester are restricted by Roe v. Wade." It is true that third trimester abortions are technically restricted to cases where the life and well being of the woman are at stake under Roe v. Wade. However, these restrictions are essentially canceled in the case of Doe v. Bolton. In this case, the court stated that abortions are legal in the third trimester as long as the "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial." are at stake. In other words, as long as the woman can show the doctor that her emotional well-being will be put at stake by the addition of a dependent (duh!) then she has the right to an abortion.

Do you see the dichotomy? While the law is not willing to abridge a woman's right to have an abortion, it acknowledges the life of the fetus. In other words abortion is homicide. There is absolutely no way to dispute that. However even homicide can sometimes be justified, so let's explore this option for a moment.

The justification that some people have for the legalization of abortion is that if the fetus was not aborted, it would be mistreated, and would more likely than not become a criminal. This does seem to be a sound logical argument that may or may not be disputed by statistics, however the principle behind this argument is flawed. If ending a life can be used in order to protect society, then we open a door that frankly should be under lock and key. With parental consent (in the form of a will) should we kill orphans as they are likely to cause societal grief? How about single parents who were abandoned by a spouse, should they be allowed to end the life of a child since they are likely to become criminals? African American children are statistically more likely yo become criminals, should we kill them? We as a society do not dispute that those actions would be monstrous and yet we are willing to justify abortion on the grounds of societal welfare.

I am not suggesting that tomorrow we wake up and declare abortions to be illegal throughout the land. What I am suggesting we do is leave the decision to the states. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be able to outlaw it by popular vote. I am simply not convinced that an abortion should be protected by the 4th amendment which protects private property. If you can kill a fetus, then it is not private property.

Abortion is killing. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If anyone wants to give a justification for it I would be more than happy to discuss that.

Ah. The topic that pits freedom against ethics. To say the least, this is a subject of much controversy and for the most part there is no middle ground. However in true Wahbastic fashion I shall strip the emotions that have defined this debate for so long and attempt to convince you that it is wrong in principle.

While I am not a person to criticize freedom of self destruction, I subscribe to the fact that an abortion is legally considered the killing of a human. I know, controversial, but here me out here.

The law has almost always considered fetuses to be alive. This can easily be shown in the Scott Peterson case. While this case doesn't have anything to do with abortion, the case shows that the law acknowledges the life of a fetus. Peterson killed his wife who was 8 months pregnant. If the law considered the fetus not to be alive, then Peterson would have been charged with one count of homicide, no problem. However, the court went a step further and added a second count of homicide for the unborn child. This shows beyond any doubt that fetuses are alive, and as such have a right to life, liberty and property. Mind you homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. There is no ownership of an unborn fetus. It is not private property. It is legally a human life. Remember that.

Some will say " Abortions in the third trimester are restricted by Roe v. Wade." It is true that third trimester abortions are technically restricted to cases where the life and well being of the woman are at stake under Roe v. Wade. However, these restrictions are essentially canceled in the case of Doe v. Bolton. In this case, the court stated that abortions are legal in the third trimester as long as the "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial." are at stake. In other words, as long as the woman can show the doctor that her emotional well-being will be put at stake by the addition of a dependent (duh!) then she has the right to an abortion.

Do you see the dichotomy? While the law is not willing to abridge a woman's right to have an abortion, it
acknowledges the life of the fetus. In other words abortion is homicide. There is absolutely no way to dispute that. However even homicide can sometimes be justified, so let's explore this option for a moment.

The justification that some people have for the legalization of abortion is that if the fetus was not aborted, it would be mistreated, and would more likely than not become a criminal. This does seem to be a sound logical argument that may or may not be disputed by statistics, however the principle behind this argument is flawed. If ending a life can be used in order to protect society, then we open a door that frankly should be under lock and key. With parental consent (in the form of a will) should we kill orphans as they are likely to cause societal grief? How about single parents who were abandoned by a spouse, should they be allowed to end the life of a child since they are likely to become criminals? African American children are statistically more likely yo become criminals, should we kill them? We as a society do not dispute that those actions would be monstrous and yet we are willing to justify abortion on the grounds of societal welfare.

I am not suggesting that tomorrow we wake up and declare abortions to be illegal throughout the land. What I am suggesting we do is leave the decision to the states. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be able to outlaw it by popular vote. I am simply not convinced that an abortion should be protected by the 4th amendment which protects private property. If you can kill a fetus, then it is not private property.

Abortion is killing. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If anyone wants to give a justification for it I would be more than happy to discuss that.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

There are people within our very borders who are losing their high paying jobs to the diabolical influences of competition. The most persecuted group of people is none other than the milkman. These men are being ruthlessly pushed out of the market by competition. The milkman provides a valid and necessary service to Americans. They deliver you fresh and cold milk to your house on a day to day basis. This job however is being encroached upon by the diabolical refrigeration business. These ice boxes from hell use sorcery and black magic to take heat out of the air and make food colder. We as a nation need to take a stand against toyota, I mean refrigeration, and protect the milkman. Sure it is cheaper to install a refrigerator in your house, but is it worth taking a job from a man? This is a terrible problem that can only be solved by having the government buy the patents that put this evil device on the market. Don't act in your self-interest by buying an efficient and affordable Japanese car...I mean refrigerator.What right does the market have in determining who gets paid? Fight the market and think of the poor milkman's family who won't have any customers. This poor man will be forced onto the street and made to get a higher education. Don't make these poor uneducated, autoworkers... I mean milkmen, have to actually learn a new skill. Think of the children.

Signed Sahr KazimRepresentative of the United Auto Worker... I mean milk man union.

There are people within our very borders who are losing their high paying jobs to the diabolical influences of competition. The most persecuted group of people is none other than the milkman. These men are being ruthlessly pushed out of the market by competition. The milkman provides a valid and necessary service to Americans. They deliver you fresh and cold milk to your house on a day to day basis. This job however is being encroached upon by the diabolical refrigeration business. These ice boxes from hell use sorcery and black magic to take heat out of the air and make food colder. We as a nation need to take a stand against toyota, I mean refrigeration, and protect the milkman. Sure it is cheaper to install a refrigerator in your house, but is it worth taking a job from a man? This is a terrible problem that can only be solved by having the government buy the patents that put this evil device on the market. Don't act in your self-interest by buying an efficient and affordable Japanese car...I mean refrigerator.What right does the market have in determining who gets paid? Fight the market and think of the poor milkman's family who won't have any customers. This poor man will be forced onto the street and made to get a higher education. Don't make these poor uneducated, autoworkers... I mean milkmen, have to actually learn a new skill. Think of the children.

Signed Sahr Kazim
Representative of the United Auto Worker... I mean milk man union.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Before You start to throw rotten tomatoes at me for for suggesting you vote a certain way, I need you to consider history.

Let me lay a foundation for this blunt statement without condition. Let us look at the last four effective presidents.

Presidents were only considered effective when some of their actions were not in line with their party platform. Let's start from the most recent.

Let us skip bush, as history has not judged his actions yet and go straight to Clinton. Despite being an ethically controversial character, by many he is looked to as one of the most effective president. What is his most praiseworthy action? He cut the deficit. Wait, what? I thought he was a democrat? That's right the most important Clintonian accomplishment was not the establishment of a liberal program that will increase the deficit. He followed the conservative principle of responsible spending. Maybe Clinton is an anomaly, lets move on to the next president that the people love.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. A man of great communication skills, arose in a Republican party at a time when the republican platform was incredibly hawkish. In fact when talking about the Carter administration the Republican platform was crystal clear:

"Despite clear danger signals indicating that Soviet nuclear power would overtake that of the United States by the early 1980s, threatening the survival of the United States and making possible, for the first time in post-war history, political coercion and defeat, the Administration reduced the size and capability of our nuclear forces."(http://tinyurl.com/ygwo92x)

Yet why do we remember Ronald Reagan for? Let me give you a hint: it was not increasing our nuclear arms. He did what many consider a very "dovish" move and he negotiated with the enemy. While on the surface he had harsh rhetoric for the Soviet Union, his real strategy were behind the closed doors of negotiation. What we praise him for is the very thing that the Republican party stood against, and yet there is mutual agreement that the United States is better off because of him.

Now before you ready your rotten tomatoes at what I am about to say, please remember that I am talking about effective presidents and not in anyway a reference to the moral character of the person. The next president on my list is Richard Millhouse Nixon. What can we possibly have to thank Nixon for? Well pretty much everything you own. The computer your reading this blog on, your possibly fruit labeled phone, and pretty much every piece of electronic equipment in your life are brought to you courtesy of Richard Nixon. There are plenty of things to hate him for, but if it wasn't for his efforts with China, we would not have recognized them as a country and we would right now be paying $2000 for union made laptops. What was the republican party platform's opinion about China about at the time?

"5. We are opposed to the recognition of Red China. We oppose its admission into the United Nations. We steadfastly support free China."(http://tinyurl.com/ykrapbm)

Are you serious? The party of the man who did the most to build US-China relations did not even want to recognize the country. Let's move on shall we?

The next effective president in history would probably be Dwight Eisenhower. Ike did many things as far as pushing the party platform, but he also did somethings that were completely irrelevant to the platform. Nowhere in the republican platform did it mention increasing the civil rights of African Americans or Expanding the highway system, in fact some would argue that the party opposed it at the time, yet we remember Ike for those actions.

What I am saying is a president is only as good as he is willing to snub his nose at the party. Now for reasons why Republican Presidents tend to be that type.

Republicans have spines: The only democrat I know who was able to snub his nose at his party was Bill Clinton. All the other Democratic presidents, no offense to the office, were more or less wusses who want to please everyone.

Republicans have a smaller party: This simply means that they have less people to please and are more willing to reach out because of that.

Republican special interest groups fight for Americans (as well as themselves) . The big one that pops into mind is the NRA. Sure they are pushed by gun corporations but there is a benefit to gun ownership to the average american. Another post for another day. However, when you look at the Democrat special interest groups, aka unions you realize that you do not benefit from buying union made products. When voting, you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evil lobbies, and on balance the Republican lobbies have selfless goals compared to the Democrat lobbies. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you and I both know that no one will make money by outlawing abortions.

Before You start to throw rotten tomatoes at me for for suggesting you vote a certain way, I need you to consider history.

Let me lay a foundation for this blunt statement without condition. Let us look at the last four effective presidents.

Presidents were only considered effective when some of their actions were not in line with their party platform. Let's start from the most recent.

Let us skip bush, as history has not judged his actions yet and go straight to Clinton. Despite being an ethically controversial character, by many he is looked to as one of the most effective president. What is his most praiseworthy action? He cut the deficit. Wait, what? I thought he was a democrat? That's right the most important Clintonian accomplishment was not the establishment of a liberal program that will increase the deficit. He followed the conservative principle of responsible spending. Maybe Clinton is an anomaly, lets move on to the next president that the people love.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. A man of great communication skills, arose in a Republican party at a time when the republican platform was incredibly hawkish. In fact when talking about the Carter administration the Republican platform was crystal clear:

"Despite clear danger signals indicating that Soviet nuclear power would overtake that of the United States by the early 1980s, threatening the survival of the United States and making possible, for the first time in post-war history, political coercion and defeat, the Administration reduced the size and capability of our nuclear forces."(http://tinyurl.com/ygwo92x)

Yet why do we remember Ronald Reagan for? Let me give you a hint: it was not increasing our nuclear arms. He did what many consider a very "dovish" move and he negotiated with the enemy. While on the surface he had harsh rhetoric for the Soviet Union, his real strategy were behind the closed doors of negotiation. What we praise him for is the very thing that the Republican party stood against, and yet there is mutual agreement that the United States is better off because of him.

Now before you ready your rotten tomatoes at what I am about to say, please remember that I am talking about effective presidents and not in anyway a reference to the moral character of the person. The next president on my list is Richard Millhouse Nixon. What can we possibly have to thank Nixon for? Well pretty much everything you own. The computer your reading this blog on, your possibly fruit labeled phone, and pretty much every piece of electronic equipment in your life are brought to you courtesy of Richard Nixon. There are plenty of things to hate him for, but if it wasn't for his efforts with China, we would not have recognized them as a country and we would right now be paying $2000 for union made laptops. What was the republican party platform's opinion about China about at the time?

"5. We are opposed to the recognition of Red China. We oppose its admission into the United Nations. We steadfastly support free China."(http://tinyurl.com/ykrapbm)

Are you serious? The party of the man who did the most to build US-China relations did not even want to recognize the country. Let's move on shall we?

The next effective president in history would probably be Dwight Eisenhower. Ike did many things as far as pushing the party platform, but he also did somethings that were completely irrelevant to the platform. Nowhere in the republican platform did it mention increasing the civil rights of African Americans or Expanding the highway system, in fact some would argue that the party opposed it at the time, yet we remember Ike for those actions.

What I am saying is a president is only as good as he is willing to snub his nose at the party. Now for reasons why Republican Presidents tend to be that type.

Republicans have spines: The only democrat I know who was able to snub his nose at his party was Bill Clinton. All the other Democratic presidents, no offense to the office, were more or less wusses who want to please everyone.

Republicans have a smaller party: This simply means that they have less people to please and are more willing to reach out because of that.

Republican special interest groups fight for Americans (as well as themselves) . The big one that pops into mind is the NRA. Sure they are pushed by gun corporations but there is a benefit to gun ownership to the average american. Another post for another day. However, when you look at the Democrat special interest groups, aka unions you realize that you do not benefit from buying union made products. When voting, you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evil lobbies, and on balance the Republican lobbies have selfless goals compared to the Democrat lobbies. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you and I both know that no one will make money by outlawing abortions.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Ah, my personal favorite scientific topic, only because it is in and of itself a political one.global warming as declared by "the vast majority of scientists" is a regeneration of the hippy cry evolved into some allegedly sensible scientific arguments but before I continue I need to address the real problem which is that the populace regards scientific consensus as fact. It also follows that if the populace believes in scientific consensus then the journalist also does without a doubt. Several journalists refuse to allow arguments against global warming on their articles citing that "... global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

I wish to address the serious question of the purity of scientists. Scientists, like any other profession interact with market forces. A scientist who says that the apocalypse is nigh get funding while a scientist who does not preach the end of the world gets nothing. By definition the government creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. It goes something like this:

Government asks if need to check if there is a threat against our existence.

Scientists who believe there is a threat against our existence are funded for research.

Studies by paranoid scientists conclude that the world is going to end and call for more research

Funding is not given to other scientists who do not believe that the end is eminent in order to pay for the funding for apocalyptic scientists.

Scientists who believe that life is good make a decision between moving out of their discipline or moving towards the now forming consensus of eminent apocalypse.

Left wing think tanks are now trying something that they never succeed at doing: rebranding. Some worrisome leftists, who wish to push a conservationist agenda, are trying to change the terminology from global warming to global climate change. This is the saddest action I have ever seen taken. If the global climate goes up they say that we need to decrease our emissions, If the global climate goes down then we need to decrease our emissions. They are hedging their bet by using a catch all phrase. The only conceivable manner to disprove global warming is for the climate to stay constant, although that can be "proven" by dictating that climate cycles have been stopped because of human activity.

Global Warming has become unfalsifiable, the only way to disprove global warming is to detonate an earth sized EMP and discover that global climate change, surprise surprise, still happens.

Thankfully Americans have wizened up to global warmingChalk one more for the rightist conspiracy

Ah, my personal favorite scientific topic, only because it is in and of itself a political one.global warming as declared by "the vast majority of scientists" is a regeneration of the hippy cry evolved into some allegedly sensible scientific arguments but before I continue I need to address the real problem which is that the populace regards scientific consensus as fact. It also follows that if the populace believes in scientific consensus then the journalist also does without a doubt. Several journalists refuse to allow arguments against global warming on their articles citing that "... global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

I wish to address the serious question of the purity of scientists. Scientists, like any other profession interact with market forces. A scientist who says that the apocalypse is nigh get funding while a scientist who does not preach the end of the world gets nothing. By definition the government creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. It goes something like this:

Government asks if need to check if there is a threat against our existence.

Scientists who believe there is a threat against our existence are funded for research.

Studies by paranoid scientists conclude that the world is going to end and call for more research

Funding is not given to other scientists who do not believe that the end is eminent in order to pay for the funding for apocalyptic scientists.

Scientists who believe that life is good make a decision between moving out of their discipline or moving towards the now forming consensus of eminent apocalypse.

Left wing think tanks are now trying something that they never succeed at doing: rebranding. Some worrisome leftists, who wish to push a conservationist agenda, are trying to change the terminology from global warming to global climate change. This is the saddest action I have ever seen taken. If the global climate goes up they say that we need to decrease our emissions, If the global climate goes down then we need to decrease our emissions. They are hedging their bet by using a catch all phrase. The only conceivable manner to disprove global warming is for the climate to stay constant, although that can be "proven" by dictating that climate cycles have been stopped because of human activity.

Global Warming has become unfalsifiable, the only way to disprove global warming is to detonate an earth sized EMP and discover that global climate change, surprise surprise, still happens.

Thankfully Americans have wizened up to global warmingChalk one more for the rightist conspiracy